Is it better for women to be full time mothers or workers?

Each woman needs to decide for herself what she'd rather do.

Personally, I'd rather stay at home (I don't want kids) and do the domestic thing, but money-wise that's just not possible. Especially right now, my fiance and I are both having to work full time crappy minimum wage jobs to make ends meet, and even that's sometimes not enough. Once he gets a job in the field he went to school for, there might be more of a possibility of me staying home, but it's a very slim chance. I may be able to work part time instead of full time, but I'll most likely always have to work.

My mom, though, stayed home with us kids until the youngest one (that's me) started school. Then she went to school part time while we were at school, and was back home before we were. Once she got done with school and started working (she's a teacher), her hours were similar to ours. We had to leave earlier in the morning than she did (stupid bus ride ), and by the time the bus got us back home at the end of the day we only had to be by ourselves for an hour at most. So it worked out pretty well.

The queston was :http://www.christianforums.com/users/281434/

Is it better for women to be full time mothers or workers? The bible is instruction book for how we should live our lifes. I think we all really know the answer to this question: GOD bless;

Gabe7 said:

People used to say the woman's place is in the home but now everyone seems to agree women belong at work next to the men and kids belong at home raising themselves once school is out. Is it better for women to be home or in the work force? Is it even an ethical question or not? Look at this from a society standpoint. Is it better or worse for everyone? Obviously there are exceptions to every rule.

Click to expand...

If a woman is part of a family with a husband and kids then i think ideally it is normally better for her to be at home. When at home you are able to be much more frugal. You (hopefully) have time to cook most meals, you don't have to purchase as much expensive clothing for the office, you have time to mend childrens' clothing, go shopping for deals, etc. Also no daycare. In that way, your family does not need as much money.

And in that way also, having less women in the workplace means more jobs for men and thus more families get provided for. That's what makes sense in my head. Correct me if I am wrong.

But obviously single mothers, and "spinsters" (oh yeah kickin' it oldschool) should be able to have any job they are able to do. Also, women by nature tend to be more nurturing and do very well in things like the caregiving field. It would be a disservice to society to not allow them to do something they are good at.

briareos said:

Are you kidding me? You ask a question that has no objective answer and has a deeply ethical concern, I answered your question with the best ethical asnwer in the only relevant objective way. You then answered me with "well that's just PC" and you say I simply avoided the question.... no that's what your doing... my answer is absolutely true and it's a fact, the two choices you give cannot ever be objective or factual. You can be sexist and hold to stereotypical social roles if you want but don't act like it's reasonable or legitimate.

Click to expand...

I think what he means is that saying "everyone can do whatever they want to do" does not answer the question of what the potential best thing is to do.
People CAN let the television babysit their children, but should they? They SHOULD just because that's what they want to do?

I totally agree that people should be free to do whatever they want. It doesn't answer the hypothetical question of what you might think is best.
I mean, you could think it is the absolute best thing for people to do whatever it is they want, but I think, for instance, teaching you children that there is no God is not the best thing to do even if they want to do it.

ajunkyarddog

Certainly my statement could be rediculous if applied to other situations, but in this context it is really the only objective way to go. I was not saying that everyone should just do what they want period... I was answering a specific question with the characteristics of that question in mind.

ajunkyarddog said:

If a woman is part of a family with a husband and kids then i think ideally it is normally better for her to be at home. When at home you are able to be much more frugal. You (hopefully) have time to cook most meals, you don't have to purchase as much expensive clothing for the office, you have time to mend childrens' clothing, go shopping for deals, etc. Also no daycare. In that way, your family does not need as much money.

And in that way also, having less women in the workplace means more jobs for men and thus more families get provided for. That's what makes sense in my head. Correct me if I am wrong.

But obviously single mothers, and "spinsters" (oh yeah kickin' it oldschool) should be able to have any job they are able to do. Also, women by nature tend to be more nurturing and do very well in things like the caregiving field. It would be a disservice to society to not allow them to do something they are good at.

Click to expand...

Wow. Just... wow.

I don't even... I can't even begin to respond to this. When were you born? 1800?

ajunkyarddog said:

I think what he means is that saying "everyone can do whatever they want to do" does not answer the question of what the potential best thing is to do.
People CAN let the television babysit their children, but should they? They SHOULD just because that's what they want to do?

I totally agree that people should be free to do whatever they want. It doesn't answer the hypothetical question of what you might think is best.
I mean, you could think it is the absolute best thing for people to do whatever it is they want, but I think, for instance, teaching you children that there is no God is not the best thing to do even if they want to do it.

Click to expand...

The only option is not a mother working or the television babysitting the children. For one both my parents worked as teachers and I think a huge part to our success was that we saw our father a lot. I think that is so important that in fact I think it would be better to address such a question to men.

ajunkyarddog

I totally agree that people should be free to do whatever they want. It doesn't answer the hypothetical question of what you might think is best.

Click to expand...

Well actually that is my only possible answer to this question, I cannot answer it any other way. I honestly do not believe either choice is better or more appropriate for women than the other, if I were to lean either way that would be sexism. When you say women SHOULD be one of those choices rather than the other... that becomes sexism becuase it creates a stereotypical social role for a gender. Obviously women choose one for their own reasons but when you say women simply should be one... that's sexist so I cannot answer this anyway other than how I have.

Jade Margery said:

Wow. Just... wow.

I don't even... I can't even begin to respond to this. When were you born? 1800?

Click to expand...

Yes, working women young or old are now spinsters, and apparently jobs are freed up for men... :o

Gabe7 said:

Do you feel the same about the person's right to refuse to pay taxes or run red lights? Give me a break. Pick a side but don't be boring with this middle of the road nonsense.

Click to expand...

You opened the thread with the limited choice fallacy, got mad when someone pointed it out and now have moved on to argument via poor analogy. One wonders if your convictions are so strong why can't you argue for them without making a mockery of logic.

It is not nonsense at all to think that people are better at deciding their own priorities. We are not the judges of what all women should be doing with their time. And, the answer to that question is not always the same for every woman, or person for that matter.

Paying taxes and running red lights are legal infractions not personal decisions about how people wish to live their lives.

Gabe7 said:

This is a standard PC answer that only serves to avoid the question. Develop an opinion and stand by it for a change.

Click to expand...

Well, if I were a woman I would certainly develop an opinion on that question.

Gabe7 said:

Its an either or question. 'People should do whatever they feel like.' isn't really an opinion on anything other than a general disinterest of the topic.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is an opinion - it´s just an opinion that doesn´t accept the premises of your question.

Gabe7 said:

Do you feel the same about the person's right to refuse to pay taxes or run red lights?

Click to expand...

No, I don´t.

Jade Margery said:

Wow. Just... wow.

I don't even... I can't even begin to respond to this. When were you born? 1800?

Click to expand...

That was unnecessary. She didn't say the woman has to be at home, rather if she has small children who are not in school yet it may be more beneficial for her to be at home. Why is that such an archaic notion? It is better for children to be with their mother (or father, but we're speaking strictly of the mothers in this thread) in the first years of their development than in a daycare facility. Furthermore, daycare and preschool are very expensive, unless your child is in a government subsidized program. Many women who work outside the home, their entire paycheck goes to the child care. Why wouldn't you stay at home and save that money, if it all comes out in the wash unless you just really, really like working and it isn't about the money (since it's all going back into full-time child care anyway).

You can be more frugal when you stay at home. For those of us who are not financially privileged you kind of have to learn to be frugal. We don't need to fuel up two vehicles every week. I don't have to buy an entire wardrobe for work. I don't have to pay for lunches out. We don't have to pay for child care. We don't have to dine out regularly, because I am able to cook every single day.

Women are also more nurturing than most men. Are their exceptions to the rule? Absolutely. Not every woman is born with a maternal instinct. If they were, you wouldn't have women who remain child-free by choice. And it's just as valid as choice as women who want loads of children and want to stay home with them. That was what was considered normal up until the 1960s. It was just what you did. Now that women have more choices it seems people think the only valid choice is the one that follows the current trend - you work outside the home, period.

Gabe7 said:

People used to say the woman's place is in the home but now everyone seems to agree women belong at work next to the men and kids belong at home raising themselves once school is out. Is it better for women to be home or in the work force? Is it even an ethical question or not? Look at this from a society standpoint. Is it better or worse for everyone? Obviously there are exceptions to every rule.

Click to expand...

It's better for groups not to make the decision/judgement for individuals. Women and men don't "belong" anywhere specific, they "belong" where they need to be based on their own circumstances and needs.

Depends on the situation.
My mam started working part time when I was born and has done ever since, but she hates my dad and now she can't divorce him because she's financially dependent on him. You have to be really careful if you're going to give up your career for the sake of a family because of situations like that.

KatAutumn said:

We don't need to fuel up two vehicles every week. I don't have to buy an entire wardrobe for work. I don't have to pay for lunches out. We don't have to pay for child care. We don't have to dine out regularly, because I am able to cook every single day.

Click to expand...

I am so tired of hearing this notion that women who work have these "extra" costs. For most of my working life my husband and I were car free. I didn't even get a license until I was 36 years old, didn't even have a car until I was 39. There has been a mere 2 year period of time when we were a 2 car family. We're down to 1 car again and we don't fuel up for work every week because we use public transportation.

I don't pay for lunches out. I bring lunch from home. I know tons of non working mothers who pay for day care/nursery school babysitters etc.. - my husband and I worked opposite shifts to limit child care, and the cost of child care was nothing compared to loss of experience in the workforce we would have lost if one of us stayed out of the workforce for 5-10 years

We eat out more often know, but we no longer have young children at home. It was a rare thing to eat out when the kids were younger. With only an 18 year old at home and in college we're spending less on groceries and school so we can eat out occasionally without having to plan in advance.

There's no reason to justify one choice by claiming the other makes no sense. Whatever works for you works for you. Personally though I see a LOT of families with a stay at home parent getting food stamps, WIC, HEAP, EITC and other forms of public aid....

ajunkyarddog said:

And in that way also, having less women in the workplace means more jobs for men and thus more families get provided for. That's what makes sense in my head. Correct me if I am wrong.

Click to expand...

Maybe the men should stay out of the workplace to make more jobs for women.. wait.. maybe people who are of the designated retirement age should stay home so more jobs would be there for younger people, maybe teenagers shouldn't work so those supporting families could get jobs... and of course anyone not a man in the workplace should get paid less so because they don't have to "support" families.... yeah I feel like I just went back in time.. Hi archie.. I'm getting out of your chair now...

But obviously single mothers, and "spinsters" (oh yeah kickin' it oldschool) should be able to have any job they are able to do.

Click to expand...

Oh wait.. so only certain women should be allowed to stay home with their children? Children with a parent who has to spread themselves thinner even if they "stay home" should be expected to have a working parent.. we shouldn't help those single parents stay home.. we should only support families with 2 parents having one of them stay home...

Also, women by nature tend to be more nurturing and do very well in things like the caregiving field. It would be a disservice to society to not allow them to do something they are good at.

Click to expand...

We don't really know what is true "by nature" when society has carefully created a "norm" that doesn't really allow men to take on nurturing roles without being looked at with suspicion and negative judgements.

Gabe7 said:

This is a standard PC answer that only serves to avoid the question. Develop an opinion and stand by it for a change. That goes for the rest of you PC sheeple too.

Click to expand...

No, it's an intelligent answer from people who know that one cannot possibly know what's best for everyone else at every stage in their lives. You don't like that life is not black and white?

I can only echo the sentiment that the question cannot come down to just a yes/no answer. It depends both on the situation, the people involved, and the question to whom it should be best.
Should it be best for the child, the father, the mother, society as a whole?

Altough come to think about it, I believe generally it tends to be best for the mother to not solely be a stay-at-home mom for all concerned.
It is better for the mother because it makes her more independent financially, gives her a purpose on her own (independent from her - always temporary, and restricting - role as a mother her children and wife to her husband), and probably offers her more chances to grow as a human being.
For the father it is probably also better in the end to have a partner on equal footing who doesn't depend on him for financial aid.
What profits society most is necessarily a bit vague, but I do believe that women with more diverse capabilities and interests generally are more beneficial for any free society overall.
The benefit for the child is a bit tricky. Obviously a lot of contact to (ideally both) parents is very important, but from personal experience I'd say a mother with a life and independent purpose on her own is more beneficial for her children in the long run. So I think the best solution is generally a compromise for both parents between job and parental role. Take some moths/years off if possible, work parttime,...
One obvious additional resource are for example grandparents as helpers in raising a child (which is pretty much the traditional way in rural societies).

Of course this is all painting with a very broad brush, and not univerally applicable to individual scenarios. But if you really insist on a yes/no answer, then I say it is best for mothers to also have a job, yes.
Btw, I'm just reading a biography on Albert Einstein, and maybe the fate of his first wife Mileva, who gave up her scientific career to be the mother of his two sons, affects my judgement here somewhat.